Quantum irrelevancies

Before leaving the topic of Buddhist views of Reality, I would also like to briefly look at two perspectives that have influenced some Western Buddhists, and which they have tried to incorporate into Buddhism to varying extents: these are quantum physics, which I will look at in this section, and Deep Green philosophy, which I will look at in section e. In both these cases, Buddhists appear to have seized upon what they see as alternative �Realities� from Western culture, which they believe can be used to challenge more common Western assumptions about Reality, and by which they try to show that the Buddha Really did see things as they Really are.

Quantum physics has indeed set some puzzles for those who think they know what Reality is really like. Together with Einstein�s Special Theory of Relativity, it has challenged the belief of earlier Newtonian physicists in an orderly and predictable universe made of bits of identifiable matter. Quantum physics has shown that many of the regular physical laws that apply to the everyday world we normally observe do not apply in the same predictable way at the level of sub-atomic particles.

Sub-atomic particles, such as electrons, do not behave in the predictable ways, following predictable laws, that larger bodies seem to follow. Their behaviour, far from being predictable, can only have a probability placed on it. It is also difficult to pin down exactly what a sub-atomic particle is: since we cannot observe it directly and its behaviour is irregular, it is difficult to decide whether it is matter or energy.

The underlying philosophical issue that creates this effect seems to be the effect of the observer on the observation. If I was observing the track of a planet in the sky, I could be pretty confident that my observation is not going to affect what the planet is doing; but if I �observe� a sub-atomic particle, the only ways in which I can gain information about its behaviour is by interfering with it in ways that compromise the neutrality of my observation.

If there is any lesson to be learned from this relevant to the spiritual life, it would appear to be one about the effects of the mind on observation. Instead of this, some Buddhists[1] have foolishly pounced on quantum physics as evidence about the universe itself: that Reality is insubstantial in the ways claimed by Buddhist tradition (for example in the First Noble Truth, or in the Madhyamaka doctrine of Emptiness). Quantum physics is sometimes believed to undermine the materialism of the classical scientific approach, with the idea that materialism (the belief that everything in the universe is made out of matter) is a type of delusion of moral and spiritual significance.

All of this, though, is completely irrelevant. Quantum physics may cast doubt on some previously-held views about material reality, but it does not tell us anything at all about Reality. Quantum particles may or may not turn out to be substantial in some way, we just don�t know. The idea that the conclusions of quantum physicists are final is just as misleading as the belief that the Buddha�s achievement was final.

In addition, even if the quantum physicists had discovered something definite about the non-existence of substantial matter in the basement of the universe, this would in itself be of no spiritual or moral relevance whatsoever. It would not, at a practical level, change anyone�s desire to possess things and make them part of their egos. Ice cream tastes the same whether it is ultimately made of matter or made of energy. Although (in my experience) Buddhists frequently confuse the �materialism� of believing that the universe is made of matter and the �materialism� of wanting to possess material things, there is no necessary connection between them at all.

In many ways this debate reflects the debate about the Sarvastivada in early Buddhism, and is equally useless. The Sarvastivada thought that objects were built up from actually existent phenomenal particles, whilst others such as the Madhyamaka denied this. However, this made no difference to anyone�s practice in overcoming craving when their craving was stopping them from addressing conditions, as one way of overcoming craving might be to recognise that the thing you are craving is insubstantial, and another that it is made up of small particles. There may also be many other possible techniques for overcoming craving. There is no reason why one of these strategies should be more likely to be successful than the other, as all that is actually required is a different standpoint on the object of experience to gain some leverage on one�s delusions about it. One doesn�t have to know what it ultimately is, or is not, to do this. Similarly, one does not have to have any positive view on whether there is substantial matter at the root of things to use any kind of reflection on other ways of looking at it to undermine one�s delusions about it.